Comments

On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 10:27 -0700, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Ooh... Do you really think registering 32 dma-devices is a better solution > than allowing non-equal dma-channels? As I explained in the commit > comment, this is a specialised Image Processing DMA Controller, and each > its channel has a fixed role. So, each client has to get a specific > channel.
I see your point. Rather than doing driver gymnastics we can simply
have dmaengine do the following (basically your patch reformatted a
bit):
> > > Another problem I encountered with my framebuffer is the initialisation> > > order. You initialise dmaengine per subsys_initcall(), whereas the only> > > way to guarantee the order:> > >> > > dmaengine> > > dma-device driver> > > framebuffer> > > > hmm... can the framebuffer be moved to late_initcall?> > I assumed, that one wants to register the framebuffer as early as > possible...
Yes, but I'm hesitant to escalate the initcall level. It sounds like
the channel(s?) for the framebuffer are an integral part of the
framebuffer device so maybe they should not be registered separately?
But that runs into issues if you want the channels to return to the
general pool when the framebuffer driver is unloaded.
--
Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html